Chris Coey

@mlubin and I were talking about how there will be a decision between using the power cone formulation or the SOCP formulation. The power cone formulation would typically be smaller,...

Yeah. Though I think perhaps the ultimate goal is to encourage more conic solvers themselves to support a wider range of cones including these unsymmetric power cones.

I haven't looked in detail at what is happening here yet but I saw you mentioned complex variables in the initial post, and there now exists https://github.com/jump-dev/ComplexOptInterface.jl. @ericphanson have you...

There was an old issue which may be of interest: https://github.com/JuliaOpt/Convex.jl/issues/132

That would be awesome! Would we wait for the new nonlinear interface before trying this?

The way it parses is the way I'd interpret it actually. We can think of constraints as expressions that must evaluate to true, in which case the above says either...

Maybe there could be a new type of constraint, a logical constraint, that is similar to nlconstraint but doesn't have this 1/2 sided inequality restriction.

(let's start by dreaming big, and scale back if there's a clear reason why it's too hard 😁)

@odow echoing @pedromxavier and myself, I still would like to be able to write a logical constraint as `x || y` instead of `(x || y) == true`. How difficult...

OK we can table until SNF is in. > My worry is also that `@constraint(model, x + y)` silently assuming that the user meant `@constraint(model, x + y == true)`...